I actually thought I was meeting you half-way.

I conceded that the standard liberal comments on this issue are often overcompensation and indecisive hand-wringing. I remarked that there were valid points to your position, but that it was just carried too far. I tried to caution that the points you brought up could be used unfairly by unscrupulous demagogues to further other agendas and to pursue policies that were actually counter-productive to solving the problem. I tried to explore the issue from a historical and cultural perspective. And I pointed out that the "standard liberal position", when expressed as government policy by the present administration, was actually resulting in severe harm to radical Islamists and terror groups, without bogging us down in another endless conflict with no clear goals and an undefined enemy. And I have attempted to shed light on the subject by drawing on my own personal history as the bicultural grandson of immigrants. And I fail to see exactly where I have attempted to "defend illiberal values."

I recognize that all my positions are debatable, that they are all judgement calls. But I don't feel I've insulted you personally and I don't feel I've treated you unfairly. I really don't see how else I could have responded to your points except perhaps by unconditionally accepting every one of them and endorsing them without reservation.

No tan calvo que se le vean los sesos.